The Interaction Between Text Modality and the Learner’s Modality Preference Influences Comprehension and Cognitive Load

Abstract

This study investigates the aptitude-treatment interaction between text modality and learners' modality preference on learning outcomes and cognitive load, which is currently a point of controversy. The Meshing Hypothesis postulates there are better learning outcomes when the modality of a learning environment matches the learner's preference. However, previous research supporting the Meshing Hypothesis shows methodological issues. Therefore, clear empirical support is needed. We tested 42 learners in a between-subject design: Their preferences were either auditiveambiguous or visual, and half of each preference group randomly learned either with an auditive or a visual text. As expected, we did not find any main effects, but a significant interaction between the text modality and the learner's preference for comprehension outcomes, extraneous cognitive load, and germane cognitive load. Specifically, learners with a preference for visual texts benefit from learning with their preferred modality, they showed higher comprehension scores and less extraneous load when learning from a visual text. Auditive-ambiguous learners showed almost equal results with both text modalities. This might be explained by the fact that most texts in everyday life are presented visually, and therefore learners with an auditive preference needed to develop appropriate reading strategies. Thus, our results partly support the Meshing Hypothesis.

The Learning Styles Neuromyth Is Still Thriving in Medical Education

“…The picture is further complicated by the apparent similarities between the terminology of Learning Styles, and the language of educational neuroscience and psychology. For example, one study proposed to test the meshing hypothesis ( Lehmann and Seufert, 2020 ) but did not use a Learning Styles instrument as defined by Coffield et al (2004) However, they did test learners “preferences for auditive versus visual stimuli” using a 12-item questionnaire previously published in the German language. They then randomly assigned participants to receive visual (text) or auditory versions of a 661-word text passage, followed by measures of comprehension and cognitive load.…”

Revisiting cognitive load theory: second thoughts and unaddressed questions

“…It is beyond the scope of this article to provide a detailed review of these different types of load and how different scholars have attempted to define and measure these types of load, but this work has been done already anyway (e.g., [1-5, 20, 23]) and can be briefly summarised as follows. On the one hand, there are cognitive load theorists who state that we need three types of cognitive load: load arising from essential aspects of the task (intrinsic), load due to non-essential aspects of the task (extraneous), and load arising from the deliberate engagement in learning (germane) (e.g., [7,25]). On the other hand, there are scholars who state that germane load is that part of the intrinsic load that results in learning (i.e., not all intrinsic load results in learning); from this perspective, germane load is therefore not a third independent type of load but part of intrinsic load (e.g., [2,5,20,26]).…”

Validation of Cognitive Load During Inquiry-Based Learning With Multimedia Scaffolds Using Subjective Measurement and Eye Movements

“…Along with verbal reasoning skills, reading skills can have an impact on individual learning performance, especially for text-based instructional materials (Plass and Homer, 2002;Plass et al, 2003;Jäger et al, 2017). In connection with the preference for specific, material-related instructional formats (see "Learning preference/Representation Preference"), reading skills can also have an influence on the processing of the task or the provided material (Peterson et al, 2015;Lehmann and Seufert, 2020). On the one hand, reading skills are also closely related to cognitive (verbal) skills.…”

“…On the other hand, the expression of reading skills can have an influence on information processing especially when learning with text-based (monomodal) materials (Schneider et al, 2017). Learning Preference/Representation Preference Preferences with respect to a specific instructional material, modality, or representation fundamentally describe a person's preferences to do or use something in a certain way than in another way (Kürschner et al, 2005;Lehmann and Seufert, 2020). The optional, student-specific selection of a learning material according to an individual's preference, may result in positive effects in terms of, for example, motivation to complete the task (in reference to the self-regulation: Rheinberg et al, 2000;Baars et al, 2017).…”

“…Their findings provide insights into the relationships between the (learning-) preference, the use of the respective instructional material (only modality), and the expression of CL. Thus, learners who associated their preferred modality with visual texts benefited and reported a lower ECL than those who did not use a modality matching their indicated preference (Lehmann and Seufert, 2020). Choi et al (2014), relationships between causal and assessment factors can be identified, which need to be tested in order to validate a subjective measurement instrument for the three different types of CL (Figure 1).…”